Canada under Conservative rule.
Computer Science Canada America Jr. |
| Author: | Mr. T [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | America Jr. |
Canada under Conservative rule. |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
*happy dance* Wish NDP got more seats tho....but still good  |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm just waiting for when Alberta separates, I'm looking for a way to move out there now. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah. Fortunately by the time I get back there'll probably be another election. Go Canada. Who knows, maybe, just MAYBE the conservatives will prove that they're not religious nutcases. GOP 2.0 (or GOP 0.1 depending on how you look at it) |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The NDP, at least has said that they don't want another election within the next 2 years. Hopefully we can have a co-operative coalition minority, not like the previous standoffish one. I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords.  |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: The NDP, at least has said that they don't want another election within the next 2 years. Hopefully we can have a co-operative coalition minority, not like the previous standoffish one.
I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords. Meh, the NDP are just posturing to make themselves look good. It's not like they could affect an election in this parliament anyways, as they no longer hold the balance of power. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The balance of power is precisely what they hold. Whoever the NDP side with , Liberal or Conservative, in any vote, thats the side who wins. The NDP are in a great position. so 42, what are you talking about? |
|
| Author: | Delos [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bah. Ah well, I guess it's a good thing I'm not very politically inclined, or this might get to me more. From what I can gather though, minority gov'ts won't last more than a year or so, so we'll be repeating this whole shinanigan in about 12-16 months. I just hope they don't cause too much havoc in that time... |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Green party for the win! |
|
| Author: | Mr. T [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alex's Opinion |
Don't forget Communist Canada. |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: The balance of power is precisely what they hold. Whoever the NDP side with , Liberal or Conservative, in any vote, thats the side who wins. The NDP are in a great position.
so 42, what are you talking about? You have heard of the Bloc Quebecois right? Seems like they might have more votes then the NDP... |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: The balance of power is precisely what they hold. Whoever the NDP side with , Liberal or Conservative, in any vote, thats the side who wins. The NDP are in a great position.
so 42, what are you talking about? Untrue. 308 seats in the House of Commons. 124 are Conservative, 29 are NDP. If the NDP and the Conservatives vote together, but everyone else opposes them, they lose. The NDP would hold the balance of power if NDP + CON > everyone As it is, they hold no balance of power. For a coalition to win, it will need another party other than them to join it, which gives them no balance of power. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just adding kindling to the fire; I didn't vote for the guy, BTW). Probably a purely PR move, but this sort of flies in the face of Harper being the US lapdog. New Canadian PM rebuffs US envoy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4652746.stm |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
On a side note, Harper just told the GOP to fuck off when they said they consider northern Canada 'international waters.' We should drive a Destroyer down the Mississipi and claim that they are 'international waters' |
|
| Author: | md [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Just adding kindling to the fire; I didn't vote for the guy, BTW). Probably a purely PR move, but this sort of flies in the face of Harper being the US lapdog.
New Canadian PM rebuffs US envoy http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4652746.stm 'Tis too bad they got hte border's wrong; Canada's territory extends to the north pole, or if it's the new pole really close. There is no international land up north, it's all claimed either by Canada, Russia, or Denmark. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Claimed isn't the same as owned or occupied, though. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Claimed is indeed the same as owned when we do patrol the area with planes, and occasionally ice breakers (there are only so many ice breakers, and so much area to cover). Having been claiming the area for a rather long time, like more then 50 years also makes a difference. |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cornflake, that would be the entire debate. Depending on your side of it, claiming could or could not be the same as owning. Thus whole diplomatic problem this poses. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ushely i do not suport the consertives nor minitraly acuactions but i think this was aucatly a good move showing the u.s. not to mess with us. If we did/do not take a strong stand on this we will lose that land and once that happens it will show us as week and invite the u.s. to take even more advatge of us. I know this problem existed between us and denmark over a trival pice of island but this is just geting redicules with u.s. now claming it to be international waters and russia and norway cliaming. I think the U.N. should get involved and start a herining in to the land claims. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
U.N has no voice in front of the US. Why? Cuz the US themselves have simply ignore the UN on some occasions. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The problem with refering it to the UN is that they would find that it is international territory. Why? Simply because that is the decision that would benefit everyone except Canada. In terms of who has the strongest claim to it, I think it is Canada(or maybe I'm biased) because a) I believe that the British were the first to map it and Canada would inherit this claim b) the Inuit have traditionally inhabited this land so as Canadian citizens we technically have current posession. However, unless we are prepared to enforce our sovereignty noone is going to respect it. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
...and it's the native population that gives us de facto claim on the northern islands, and everything within 200 miles therein. The actual arctic cap is up for more debate. A country can't just claim a chunk of ocean because it -borders- the mainland. (Otherwise the US would have sole ownership of the Pacific and Atlantic by now). The US would love for the arctic to be international BTW, because then they aren't breaking any rules by having their submarines up there. |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
canada every so often tasks our military up there to do arctic training and to make sure that land stays ours |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, I believe that the agreement that exists between Canada and the US is that they promise to always ask us if they want to send ships through that area, as long as we promise to always say yes The main conflict seems to be who gets what in this region. Usually claims on coastal water is based on claiming a certain amount off a countries coast.
Quote: Under Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Convention, a state can claim a 200 nautical mile exclusive zone and beyond that up to 150 nautical miles of rights on the seabed. The baseline from which these distances are measured depends on where the continental shelf ends.
Since the area in question is surrounded by countries this causes the sort of conflicts that make lawyers happy 
A good overview of the situation can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354036.stm |
|